Selection of Priority Production Technology Based on Comparative Evaluation of the Oil and Gas Equipment Working Resource

  • A. G. IgnatievEmail author
  • V. V. Erofeev
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


The purpose of this article is to provide the largest working resource of oil and gas equipment by selecting a priority manufacturing technology. We propose to use the plasticity resource of the material as a criterion for the choice of technology. Manufacturing technology which provides the greatest plasticity resource of the material should be recognized as a priority. We propose a new procedure for comparing technologies using information on the plasticity resource of metal at the final stage of fabrication of the product. This procedure includes the following steps: (a) cutting samples from the regions of the structure with the most deformed metal, (b) determining the mechanical characteristics of the metal using the penetration method based on ESPI, (c) testing the samples for crack resistance, and (d) determining the plasticity reserve of the material. At the last stage, the concept of a two-stage process of damageability accumulation is used. The proposed procedure excludes a detailed analysis of individual technological operations. The use of this procedure will simplify the comparison of the different technological processes for the products manufactured and the selection of priority technology.


Oil and gas equipment Production technology Plasticity reserve Working resource Forecasting 


  1. 1.
    Winston R (2015) Oil and gas pipelines: integrity and safety handbook. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pluvinage G, Elwany MH (2007) Safety, reliability and risks associated with water, oil and gas pipelines. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maruschak P, Panin S, Chausov M, Bishchak R, Polyvana U (2016) Effect of long-term operation on steels of main gas pipeline: structural and mechanical degradation. J King Saud Univ Eng. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou Wenxing (2010) System reliability of corroding pipelines. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 87:587–595. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nessim MA, Zhou W, Zhou J, Rothwell B, McLamb M (2009) Target reliability levels for design and assessment of onshore natural gas pipelines. J Pressure Vessel Technol 131(12):1–12. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hrabovs’kyi RS (2009) Determination of the resource abilities of oil and gas pipelines working for a long time. J Mater Sci 45:309. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karetnikov DV, FairushinAI Rizvanov RG, Kolokhov KS (2013) Increasing the reliability of oil and gas equipment working in the conditions of steep temperature gradients. Weld Int 27:557–560. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pesinis K, Tee Kong Fah (2017) Statistical model and structural reliability analysis for onshore gas transmission pipelines. Eng Fail Anal 82:1–15. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andreikiv OE, Rudavs’kyi DV (1999) Prediction of the service life of pipeline elements subjected to the action of hydrogen-containing media. Mater Sci 35:491–498. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shpigel’ MYa, Zadvornov NV, Kobzar’ AM, Kremer MI (1998) Technical diagnosis and determination of the remaining service life of compressor plants, vessels, apparatus, and industrial pipelines. Chem Pet Eng 34:721–723. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erofeev VV, Aimetov FG, Shakhmatov MV, Smetanin FE, Baldin VM (1993) Determination of the service life of pipelines by evaluating the residual ductility of the metal of pipes and their welded joints. Strength Mater 25:928–935. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mukherjee D (1997) Residual ductility management and life-predication. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 44(2):77–83. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Antselovich OV, Makarenko VD, Samoilova MI (2004) Estimating welded pipeline residual life on the basis of hydrogen degradation of the metal. Chem Pet Eng 40(11):762–764. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erofeev VV, Ignatiev AG, Almuchametov AA, Sharafiyev RG, Erofeev SV (2017) Information and diagnostic system for evaluation of technical condition parameters oil and gas pipelines. Electr Data Process Facil Syst 13:59–65Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erofeev VV, Shakhmatov MV, Aimetov FG (1993) Forecasting residual operating resource of pipes in static loading in corrosion environments. Transp Storage Pet Prod 2:20Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erofeev VV, Ignatiev AG, Erofeev SV, Sharafiyev RG (2015) Evaluation of remaining operating life of oil depots equipment in agroindustrial complex by results of technical condition diagnostics. Tract Agric Mach 6:29–32Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bogatov AA (2009) Mechanical properties and models of metal destruction. USTU-UPI, EkaterinburgGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bogatov AA, Mizhiritsky OI, Smirnov SV (1984) Resource of plasticity of metals in pressure treatment. Metallurgy, MoskowGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Polukhin PI, Hunn GYa, Gapkin AM (1976) Resistance to plastic deformation of metals and alloys. Reference Book. Metallurgy, MoskowGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ignatiev AG, Erofeev VV, Tretyakov AA (2016) Residual Stress Measurements Using Elasto-plastic Indentation and ESPI. Mater Sci Forum 843:161–166. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ivanyts’kyi YL, Shtayura ST (2005) Evaluation of the characteristics of crack resistance of materials for mixed macromechanisms of fracture. Mater Sci 41:113. Scholar
  22. 22.
    GOST 25.506-85 (1985) Strength analyses and tests. methods for mechanical testing of metals. Determination of the characteristics of crack resistance (fracture toughness) under static loading. Izd. Standartov, MoscowGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Ural State UniversityChelyabinskRussia
  2. 2.Ufa State Petroleum Technological UniversityUfaRussia

Personalised recommendations